Atheism and the origin of the universe

The New Atheist Richard Dawkins wrote that the "universe literally evolved out of nothing."

The First Law of Thermodynamics and the Second Law of Thermodynamics point to the universe having a beginning.

Although many atheists indicate that they do not know how the universe came into being, some prominent atheists claim that the universe came into existence from nothing.

Jonathan Sarfati wrote about atheist Stephen Hawking claiming the universe came from nothing: "However, logic doesn’t seem to be his strong point; ‘self-creation’ is self-contradictory. Something can do something — including create—only if it exists; something not yet existing has no power to do anything, including create itself."

The steady state theory, which posited an eternal universe, was formerly posited by atheist cosmologists, but it has fallen out of disfavor.

Biblical Christianity maintains that God, who is eternal, supernaturally created the universe. Gordon Van Whyden author of the book Thermodynamics wrote: "The author has found that the 2nd law tends to increase his conviction that there is a creator who has the answer for the future destiny of man and the universe."

Prominent atheists and agnostics claiming the universe came from nothing

Atheist Stephen Hawking claims: "because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing". Hawking further claims that the universe “popped into existence without violating the known laws of Nature". Atheist Victor J. Stenger wrote: "Assuming the universe came from nothing, it is empty to begin with…". Atheist Quinton Smith indicated “the most reasonable belief is that we came from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing." The new atheist and agnostic Richard Dawkins wrote: “The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved literally out of nothing, is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice."

Theistic implications of the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics

In the articles below, theists point out the First Law of Thermodynamics and the Second Law of Thermodynamics point to the universe having a divine origin:

• Evidence for the Supernatural Creation of the Universe by Patrick R. Briney, Ph.D.

• Can the laws of science explain the origin of the universe?

• The Laws of Thermodynamics Don't Apply to the Universe! by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

Lawrence Kraus, the origin of the universe and the fallacy of equivocation

See also: Atheism and equivocation

David Darling in the science magazine New Scientists wrote:

“

What is a big deal - the biggest deal of all - is how you get something out of nothing! Don't let the cosmologists try to kid you on this one. They have not got a clue either... 'In the beginning,' they will say, 'there was nothing - no time, space, matter or energy. Then there was a quantum fluctuation from which...' Whoa! Stop right there. You see what I mean? First there is nothing, then there is something. And the cosmologists try to bridge the two with a quantum flutter... Then they are away and before you know it, they have pulled a hundred billion galaxies out of their quantum hats.

”

Atheist Lawrence Krauss speaking at an American Atheists conference.

The Christian Apologetics and Research Ministy (CARM) points out that the atheist Lawrence Krauss uses the logical fallacy of equivocation in his failed attempt to explain the origin of the universe.

CARM declares:

“

But I have a bone to pick with Dr. Krauss about his latest book, A Universe from Nothing, which has the subtitle Why there is something rather than nothing? Those having taken an intro to philosophy class will recognize that Krauss’ subtitle is a rendition of the most basic philosophical question of existence, which has been attributed to truth seekers such as Gottfried Leibniz who asked, “Why do we have something rather than nothing at all?”.... You would think that by the title of Krauss’ book he answers the question that Leibniz posed, but he doesn’t. Instead, he redefines what ‘nothing’ is. ‘Nothing’ to Dr. Krauss would be empty space or the quantum vacuum.... Dictionary.com defines ‘nothing’ as: 1. no thing; not anything; naught: to say nothing. 2. no part, share, or trace (usually followed by of ): The house showed nothing of its former magnificence. 3. something that is nonexistent. 4. nonexistence; nothingness: The sound faded to nothing. But, I think the best definition of ‘nothing’ is Aristotle’s: “Nothing is what rocks dream about.” Why does Krauss attempt to redefine ‘nothing’? Because Krauss is an atheist and a fairly acerbic one at that. He not only doesn’t believe in God but also doesn’t like God. Here is the problem Krauss faces: If nothing is really nothing and we have something (the universe) from a real nothing, then it points to the universe having a beginning. And as Stephen Hawking has observed, “Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention.” The problem is that empty space and/or the quantum vacuum aren’t nothing; they’re something. So Krauss’ book does absolutely ‘nothing’ to answer Leibniz’s question and leaves his readers no better off than they were before where the issue of the origin of the universe is concerned. All the scientific evidence points to the universe exploding out of true nothingness, but atheists like Krauss hate this truth.

”

External links

• If God created the universe, then who created God? by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati

See also

• Cosmological argument

• Multiverse

• Anthropic principle